greyhawkfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Scourge of the Slave Lords
Should A0-A4 be given it's own page? I put A1-4 and A0-A4 together because they're both compilation modules of the A series, and A0-A4 really doesn't have anything new to add to be able to fill a page; it's purely a compilation of modules A0 to A4 with minimal error corrections, and some additional forewords and fan art. However A1-4 and A0-A4 have very different purposes as compilations. A1-4 intends to be part of the T,A,GDQ mega series rather than the A series. Later additions to the A series ignore changes A1-4 made. On one hand, A0-A4 would be an empty page, on the other, these two compilations aren't actually all that similar.Mozzeltoff (talk) 17:20, July 11, 2019 (UTC) ::I believe, for all intents and purposes, A0-A4 is just an update of the same compilation. I don't think it should have it's own page because that takes it away from the context in which it exists. If someone found a separate page for it, it could easily be presumed they might not ever see the page for A1-A4. Also, they have the same name. They're just two editions of the same compilation. Granted, they aren't precisely the same … but, from an end-user's point of view, I think if they're looking it up, they ought to be able to find full information about the compilation.--IcarusATB (talk) 07:38, July 12, 2019 (UTC) Should series (such as the A series) get their own page? This could be to broadly discuss the series- rather than have series trivia on each module page, that could be summed up and added to the series page. This saves repeating too similar information each time for each module. If we did want series pages, what should the naming style be? "A Series (Aerie of the Slave lords)", "A Series: Aerie of the Slave lords", so on. Mozzeltoff (talk) 17:20, July 11, 2019 (UTC) ::Personally, I don't believe so. Unless there's a compilation of the series, or the series is known seperrately by it's own name. While I know there's likely to be some copy/pasting of some data like bibliographies and publication information, I don't think there's so much that it would warrant a separate page. If there's a compilation, or they have their own collective title, then perhaps. But, I can't think of an example of the latter case.--IcarusATB (talk) 07:38, July 12, 2019 (UTC) :: ::Series pages could contain a list of all modules part of a series across editions (Not all later edition modules will be tagged like the 1st edition TSR modules, and Dungeon Magazine Modules will lack tags), publication and trivia notes that apply to multile modules (All the A1 to A4 modules have almost exactly the same trivia notes on how they were designed and such), notes on what parts are later treated as canonical (The TAGDQ series seems to be treated as semi non canonical, with later modules in the seperate series ignoring the overarching story between them or changes they made, but treating a few details as canonical- For example A1-4 removes the character Selzen Murtano, but later A series modules ignore this removal, while A1-4 adds the character Black Kerr, which later publications such as Slavers acknowledge). I agree that these things could simply be noted on individual module/publication pages, but wondered if an overall Series page would be useful. :: On a similar note to both the above questions, it might be a good idea to discuss how we want to handle compilation modules. A1-4, T1-4 and GDQ1-7 ''are ''compilations but also add entirely new content to the base modules they compile and are technically not part of the same series they compile, so it makes sense for them to get their own pages seperate to their base modules. Compilations like A0-A4, G1-2-3, D1-2 are simply compilations- they do not add new content. A0-A4 would be too large a page if we tried to fit all A0, A1, A2, A3, A4 onto one page, but G1-2-3 could easily fit on the same page, but then we wouldn't have a standard way to treat compilations- either we should try and treat them all as one page (Then have the seperate modules link to their section on the page), or have no compilation pages (and should maybe link the compilation modules such as Against the Giants, to the first module in the series). Either way, page indexes would be incorrect for one of them, base or compilation, but the alternative is making full pages for compilations and base modules- useful for indexes and publication details, although much data would be repeated across the pages. So I guess my question can be summed up; 1) No compilation module pages (unless great changes were made, like A1-4), link to first module in the compilation. 2) No base module pages, link to their section in the compilation page, 3) Have both full pages for compilation and base modules?Mozzeltoff (talk) 11:08, July 12, 2019 (UTC)